Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to

[Henrin]

Lol, do that and let us know how it turns out for you.

He will break my window and force me out of the car. It's not wise to think I don't know what will happen from being disobedient.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

As interesting as this is, it's so far removed from something that I would EVER do as to be silly. If I've done nothing wrong, I'm going to listen to a copper, a border patrol agent or a community safety officer, for that matter. If I've done something wrong, I'll gladly exercise my right to keep silent. I don't play those games...have no interest in playing those games...and think people who play those games (like the OP guy) are stupid.

I've gotten along just fine on this earth without challenging a copper's authority. I don't intend to start now. But, for sure, be my guest.

Just make sure you're right.

Edit:

I'm the gal who quickly puts on her turn signal showing I'm pulling to the right when a copper turns his lights on; waits to pull over safety; puts on the interior lights if it's dark out; rolls down the driver-side window; and keeps both hands on the wheel until the officer tells me to do otherwise.

I'm also the gal who usually gets a pass.

That I understand. I've also always been cordial and cooperative with the police, but that is because they've never asked to search my vehicle. Or perhaps that's why they've never asked. However, I will refuse a search if asked.

I've been pulled over 4 times in my life. The first was an assertive authoritative dick, but he had nothing. The two tickets I received, the officers couldn't have been more nice and even explained why they needed me to be extra slow on said road because of its hills and angles people back to reverse out into with ZERO visibility. One officer even let me off with a warning after opening with "These things go fast don't they? I've got an MR2 Turbo myself... just slow it down."

I am well aware of how effective going along to get along with the police can be and will always try to be polite. But if I feel like my rights are being violated, that I'm being treated like the ignoramuses who have no understanding of their rights, or worse being racially profiled... I'll get all libertarian on them.

My rule is simple, don't start nothin wont be nothin. If you got me breaking the law I'll sign and pay no question, I even go to court for the purpose of expressing how much of a positive experience it was to deal with the officer.

 

[Ikari]

You've demonstrated you've got it wrong. This was a FEDERAL checkpoint, consistent with federal law in accordance with court decisions. IF you had actually read your state's driver's manual, you know the rules you agreed to in order to operate a motor vehicle, you'd know you are required to identify yourself with a license upon request of a state or federal officer. Failure to do so can result in your legal detention and loss of the PRIVILEGE of driving.

I understand that the Feds instituted a "Papers Please" policy. I am saying that the policy is wrong, regardless of what the government may try to claim.

 

[specklebang]

Immigration and Customs have always had a "pass" on searches. Just as it is with the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. So, if those guys tell you to stop - STOP - and don't get lippy.

What's contentious and offensive is the increased empowerment to make arbitrary traffic stops and establish city checkpoints. As usual "if you aren't doing anything wrong blah, blah, blah" we have allowed it, even demanded it, in our endless quest for law and order. I resent the hell out of it but I do exactly what the nice policeman tells me to do.

Good to see an occasional lunatic make a point. Bet he'll regret it.

Warrants aren't always needed for a search, or for a stop.

This guy was an ass hole who was looking for trouble. He should have rolled down his window, at least partially.

 

[Ikari]

First point. Don't confuse my personal philosophy with my understanding of what the law allows. I didn't say I agreed with the law - I simply stated what I believe it to be.

See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), where the SC ruled that Nevada laws compelling people to identify themselves to police during Terry stops are legal. Many states have specific statutes detailing what information you must provide police when stopped. If you refuse to even talk to the police you obviously cannot provide that information.

Like it or the reasonable suspicion standard is a pretty low bar and courts give the police huge leeway with what constitutes "reasonable." You can argue it all you want but it's settled law and you will invariably lose.

Alright, fair enough. I can see your "this is how it is, but I don't like it" stance. I understand what the courts have done. I don't agree with it. Government always moves to expand its powers, always. Innate nature of government. It cannot be trusted to police itself and the courts are just pieces of itself.

 

[Ikari]

time to sell the car and give up your license.

Or time to shoot more cops. Either or.

 

[X Factor]

You've demonstrated you've got it wrong. This was a FEDERAL checkpoint, consistent with federal law in accordance with court decisions. IF you had actually read your state's driver's manual, you know the rules you agreed to in order to operate a motor vehicle, you'd know you are required to identify yourself with a license upon request of a state or federal officer. Failure to do so can result in your legal detention and loss of the PRIVILEGE of driving.

Exactly, implied consent FTW.

 

[Henrin]

Exactly, implied consent FTW.

That thing that doesn't exist FTW

 

[X Factor]

Or time to shoot more cops. Either or.

You're all talk (at least I hope you are). Even if you like the idea of dead cops, that's called Capital Murder.

 

[Ikari]

Exactly, implied consent FTW.

Implied consent is FTL, as I never actually consented and I have no reasonable alternative to cars. So it's just the government usurping power and stating that if we want to have freedom of movement, if we want to reasonably be able to commute and participate in society, we have to do exactly as they say when they say it and no back talk!

Fairly dangerous.

 

[Ikari]

You're all talk (at least I hope you are). Even if you like the idea of dead cops, that's called Capital Murder.

It's called "I can create a whole lot of damage before you catch me" in reality.

Though to be honest, I do not like the idea of dead cops. I like the idea of well controlled and limited cop action. Big difference (though I do understand your comment).

 

[Henrin]

You're not one of those open borders types, are you? Border Patrol checkpoints are considered, literally, a matter of national security, same with airports. Do you object to security at an airport? Be as miffed as you want but if you run a Border Patrol checkpoint, expect them to legally come after you. I live on the border. Most of the time you don't even have to show ID, just tell them your citizenship and move on.

When I was younger I used to be very much into border security, but as I have grown older I find myself struggling to understand why all these steps are necessary to protect a line in the sand that means little to nothing to the greater picture. This constant desire for people to have and more and more ID for whatever it might be seems to be entirely pointless and worse dangerous.

 

[X Factor]

It's called "I can create a whole lot of damage before you catch me" in reality.

And advocating cop killing is one of the reasons I'm not libertarian. I have moral beliefs against such things.

 

[Ikari]

And advocating cop killing is one of the reasons I'm not libertarian. I have moral beliefs against such things.

I amended that post.

 

[APACHERAT]

Video @: Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to - YouTube

Man refuses to roll down his window to a checkpoint. He continues to take pictures, as the sheriff comes over they motion him to go to a secondary area and they bash his window in while he is in his car. Is this a bit excessive and goes against our rights? I think so. No warrant was presented.

You got it all wrong !

This was a U.S. federal check point near the Mexican border. It was manned by federal agents looking for terrorist, drug smugglers, human traffickers and especially illegal alien criminals who want to rape your dog.

It wasn't a deputy sheriff who smashed the window but a federal agent. The idiot driver was arrested by federal officers not by a county deputy sheriff.

 

[Henrin]

You got it all wrong !

This was a U.S. federal check point near the Mexican border. It was manned by federal agents looking for terrorist, drug smugglers, human traffickers and especially illegal alien criminals who want to rape your dog.

My neighbor might

be a terrorist
be a drug smuggler
be a human trafficker
want to rape my dog.

Just sayin'...

 

[X Factor]

It's called "I can create a whole lot of damage before you catch me" in reality.

Though to be honest, I do not like the idea of dead cops. I like the idea of well controlled and limited cop action. Big difference (though I do understand your comment).

I hope you understand it, given you said it's time to start killing a few of them. The only good cop is a dead cop, huh?

 

[X Factor]

I amended that post.

Why the backpedal? You've made comments along those lines before.

 

[clownboy]

Funny how you seemed to miss the entire f'n concept. So let me restate. There was no warrant nor cause to search and seize one's person, property, nor papers. And yet that was what was done. So it seems rather clearly that the 4th was grievously violated. Which is of no surprise, that right is just about dead thanks to the Government.



Oh, I understand very well what Rights are. You seem to think they are subject to Government whim. They're not, that's not what "Right" means. So perhaps I'll just say this slower, so maybe you'll catch on. I.....UNDERSTAND.....THAT.......THE......COURTS.....HAVE........RULED.........THAT.........ILLEGAL SEARCH......AND SEIZURE.......IS LEGAL........IN SOME (MOST)......CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM......NOT........SURPRISED......THAT THE........GOVERNMENT......WORK IN.......SUCH A...........WAY THAT............THEY USURP.......AND STEAL.........POWER FROM.......THE STATES.......AND THE PEOPLE.

Slow enough? Did you get that? I don't know if I can make that clearer for ya pal. You're just going to have to ferret it out for yourself.

It fails the clarity test because it is doublespeak plain and simple. By definition these are not "illegal search and seizure" because the court has found them legal and not at odds with our constitutional rights, including the 4th. You seem to want to alter the nature of reality. And hey, I can agree with you, having a star chamber like the SCOTUS run things this way is NOT what we signed up for as a country. But it is indeed the reality.

Again, if you want the rights you think you should have, the way you think you should have them as opposed to the rights you do have in the way you have them now - a constitutional amendment is the only avenue, short of a successful revolution, that remains. Or I suppose you could also choose to just go on bitching about it.

I've long been on record here for a privacy amendment.

 

[Ikari]

I hope you understand it, given you said it's time to start killing a few of them. The only good cop is a dead cop, huh?

No, there are plenty of good cops that should be left alive. But there is an underlying point. I don't want to kill, and I don't want to advocate violence; but if they leave us with no choice, then we are left with no choice. So the actual decision is on their hands.

 

[Ikari]

It fails the clarity test because it is doublespeak plain and simple. By definition these are not "illegal search and seizure" because the court has found them legal and not at odds with our constitutional rights, including the 4th. You seem to want to alter the nature of reality. And hey, I can agree with you, having a star chamber like the SCOTUS run things this way is NOT what we signed up for as a country. But it is indeed the reality.

Again, if you want the rights you think you should have, the way you think you should have them as opposed to the rights you do have in the way you have them now - a constitutional amendment is the only avenue, short of a successful revolution, that remains. Or I suppose you could also choose to just go on bitching about it.

I've long been on record here for a privacy amendment.

It shouldn't need an amendment because what a right is hasn't changed in hundreds of years. If the courts and government act counter to that, they force only 1 outcome should they choose to employ said strategy for too long.

 

[MaggieD]

No, there are plenty of good cops that should be left alive. But there is an underlying point. I don't want to kill, and I don't want to advocate violence; but if they leave us with no choice, then we are left with no choice. So the actual decision is on their hands.

Oh, stop it.

 

[Ikari]

Why the backpedal? You've made comments along those lines before.

I have not backpedaled, these have always been my ideals. I do not wish to engage in violence if at all avoidable. If they make it unavoidable, then they must be aware of the natural consequences.

 

[Ikari]

Oh, stop it.

Piss off, don't tell me what to say. You ain't the NSA.

 

[MaggieD]

Piss off, don't tell me what to say. You ain't the NSA.

Just trying to help you not look foolish.






Too late.